Disposed

Perakam Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Telangana HC9 Jul 2008WP/14676/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the marking of properties for demolition in road widening, the High Court disposed of the matter without admission. Respondents undertook to follow due process of law if structures required demolition.

What did the court decide?

Case disposed of; respondents directed to follow due process of law if structures are required for demolition.

Perakam Venkateswara Rao Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14676 of 2008

¶5

Between: 1 Perakam Venkateswara Rao S/o. Suryanarayana R/o. Door No.15-1-10, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 2 Kotha Satyanarayana S/o. Chenchu Punnaiah R/o. Door No.15-1-6, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 3 Kotha Venkata Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Chenchu Punnaiah R/o. Door No.15-1-6, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 4 Kothamasu Venkateswarlu S/o. Rameswaram R/o. Door No.15-1-7, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 5 Sathuluri Venkata Mallikarjuna Rao S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Door No.15-1-12, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 6 Gunuputi Hymavathi W/o. Subba Rao R/o. Door No.15-1-13, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 7 Patchipulusu Madhusudhna Rao S/o. Raghavulu R/o. Door No.15-1-66, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 8 Juturi Venkateswarlu S/o. Hanumantha RAo R/o. Door No.15-1-46, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 9 Kotha Chenchu Punnaiah S/o. Narasimham R/o. Door No.15-1-54, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 10 Vemala Haribabu S/o. Chenchu Ramaiah R/o. Door No.15-1-57, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala

¶6

Town, Prakasam District. 11 Juturi Venkata Guru Brahma Ravi Kumar S/o. Peraiah R/o. Door No.15-1-5, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 12 Thatikonda Baby Padmavathi W/o. Seetharamanjaneyulu R/o. Door No.15-1-61, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 13 Chaluvadi Sakunthaladevi W/o. Subba Rao R/o. Door No.15-1-61A, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 14 Amara Surya Kumari W/o. Srimannarayana R/o. Door No.15-1-1, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 15 Grandhi Chenchaiah S/o. Raghavaiah Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District. 16 Kadiyam Hymavathi W/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Door No.15-1-58, Paparajuthota, Ramasthabam Road, Chirala Town, Prakasam District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER(S)

¶8

AND

¶9

1 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Municipal Administrstion & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Chirala Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Chirala, Prakasam District. 3 Chairperson, Chirala Municipality Council, Chirala, Prakasam District. 4 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala, Prakasam District. 5 Sub Inspector of Police, Chirala I Town Police Station, Chirala, Prakasam District.

¶10

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in marking a portion of building properties belonging to petitioners situated on either side of Ramasthambam Road, Paparajuthota Centre of Chirala Municipal Limits with a direction to demolish the same for road widening as illegal, irregular, highhanded, violative of principles of natural ljustice, provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and rules framed there under and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish any portion of

¶12

the said buildings, its compound walls and site and pass

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV.

¶15

The Court made the following :

¶16

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 14676 OF 2008

¶18

ORDER:

¶19

1. The petitioner herein, who are 16 in numbers, filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in marking a portion of building/ properties owned by them likely to be affected in road widening without following due process of law as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶20

2. Perakam Venkateswara Rao has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Particulars of the properties owned by the petitioners have been detailed in para 3 of the writ affidavit.

¶21

3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents are contemplating to widen the road by demolishing their structures without following due process of law.

¶22

4. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents takes notices and submits that the

¶23

respondents will follow the due process of law in the event of the structures put up by the petitioners are required to be demolished for the purpose of road widening.

¶24

5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to follow the due process of law in the event of the structures put up by the petitioners are required to be demolished. No order as to costs.

¶25

_____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy

¶26

9^th July, 2008. Note: C.C. in three days, B/o KM

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO. 14676 OF 2008

¶29

9th July, 2008.

Perakam Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Perakam Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Ramchandra Rao Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Mohammed Abdul Razaak Qamar Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Panchadara Gangamma W/o Late bennayya Vs The additional Agent to the Government

Smt. K.Aruna Kumari, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation

Budiga Srujana D/o Venkateswarlu Vs A.P. Board of Secondary Education, rep by its Secretary

P.Narsa Reddy, Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep., by